5 ms·

Scientist... believes... something here doesn’t add up. In science either you have evidence or you’re just bullshitting.

noodlenotes 6y ago
On the contrary, any scientist that says they're 100% confident doesn't know what they're talking about. "Belief" is as good a word as any to describe how we look at probabilities, weigh evidence, and come to the most likely conclusion.
- chadlavi 6y ago
  I agree completely on the first point, but belief is also something people have about fairies and yetis. “Have compelling evidence that” seems like a good term to me.
  - toomanyrichies 6y ago
    I think a middle ground would be that it's fine to start with a belief about how something might work (also known as a hypothesis), after all that's the first step in the Scientific Method. But crafting a hypothesis without a subsequent experiment to prove or disprove it is just wasted breath. As the adage goes, claims that are made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
crpatino 6y ago
Correct. Your point being?
jackpirate 6y ago
I downvoted you because it's perfectly possible to "believe" something because there is evidence for it. Plenty of scientists will say they "believe" in evolution, for example.
- mcny 6y ago
  > I downvoted you because it's perfectly possible to "believe" something because there is evidence for it. Plenty of scientists will say they "believe" in evolution, for example. We don't "believe" in scientific concepts. Their being a fact has no precondition on whether (or how many) people believe in them. Evolution didn't begin when Darwin started studying it. That being said, you're right. We have to start somewhere. For example, scientists just a hundred or so years ago believed in the existence of something called aether. I believe many (most?) scientists will change their opinion if we can provide them evidence contrary to their belief. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_exper... On the other hand, scientists are just human as well and are subject to the same flaws and limitations as the rest of us. Facts are only facts, until they are not (that sounded weird, I am not actually against evidence based decision-making). I mean we make what we think is our best attempt at describing our world given the tools we have and the reality we live in. I wouldn't put too much weight that scientists believe aging is optional any more than I'd put weight on scientists saying technically it is possible for us to fly in a metal tube across the Atlantic Ocean or that technically we can put a man on the moon... until it happens.
  - notsureaboutpg 6y ago
    >We don't "believe" in scientific concepts. This isn't true. The Big Bang Theory is a scientific concept, many people believe in it, but it's not a confirmed fact. Not everything can be broken down into fact and fiction. Some things we just don't / can't know and the smartest thing to do is believe one way or another while lacking enough evidence for conviction in your choice.
  - ben_w 6y ago
    > We don't "believe" in scientific concepts. Their being a fact has no precondition on whether (or how many) people believe in them. Evolution didn't begin when Darwin started studying it. I don’t understand the point you’re making here. Surely your second sentence contradicts the first?
    - 6y ago
buzzdenver 6y ago
Scientists do not write the headlines for the articles that try to communicate their research.
nathanvanfleet 6y ago
So research is just random shots in the dark? Or is there insights that are then researched and determined to be true or false?
- jiggunjer 6y ago
  False dichotomy. The answer is neither.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

noodlenotes 6y ago

On the contrary, any scientist that says they're 100% confident doesn't know what they're talking about. "Belief" is as good a word as any to describe how we look at probabilities, weigh evidence, and come to the most likely conclusion.

chadlavi 6y ago
I agree completely on the first point, but belief is also something people have about fairies and yetis. “Have compelling evidence that” seems like a good term to me.
- toomanyrichies 6y ago
  I think a middle ground would be that it's fine to start with a belief about how something might work (also known as a hypothesis), after all that's the first step in the Scientific Method. But crafting a hypothesis without a subsequent experiment to prove or disprove it is just wasted breath. As the adage goes, claims that are made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

crpatino 6y ago

Correct. Your point being?

jackpirate 6y ago

I downvoted you because it's perfectly possible to "believe" something because there is evidence for it. Plenty of scientists will say they "believe" in evolution, for example.

mcny 6y ago
> I downvoted you because it's perfectly possible to "believe" something because there is evidence for it. Plenty of scientists will say they "believe" in evolution, for example. We don't "believe" in scientific concepts. Their being a fact has no precondition on whether (or how many) people believe in them. Evolution didn't begin when Darwin started studying it. That being said, you're right. We have to start somewhere. For example, scientists just a hundred or so years ago believed in the existence of something called aether. I believe many (most?) scientists will change their opinion if we can provide them evidence contrary to their belief. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_exper... On the other hand, scientists are just human as well and are subject to the same flaws and limitations as the rest of us. Facts are only facts, until they are not (that sounded weird, I am not actually against evidence based decision-making). I mean we make what we think is our best attempt at describing our world given the tools we have and the reality we live in. I wouldn't put too much weight that scientists believe aging is optional any more than I'd put weight on scientists saying technically it is possible for us to fly in a metal tube across the Atlantic Ocean or that technically we can put a man on the moon... until it happens.
- notsureaboutpg 6y ago
  >We don't "believe" in scientific concepts. This isn't true. The Big Bang Theory is a scientific concept, many people believe in it, but it's not a confirmed fact. Not everything can be broken down into fact and fiction. Some things we just don't / can't know and the smartest thing to do is believe one way or another while lacking enough evidence for conviction in your choice.
- ben_w 6y ago
  > We don't "believe" in scientific concepts. Their being a fact has no precondition on whether (or how many) people believe in them. Evolution didn't begin when Darwin started studying it. I don’t understand the point you’re making here. Surely your second sentence contradicts the first?
  - 6y ago

buzzdenver 6y ago

Scientists do not write the headlines for the articles that try to communicate their research.

nathanvanfleet 6y ago

So research is just random shots in the dark? Or is there insights that are then researched and determined to be true or false?

jiggunjer 6y ago
False dichotomy. The answer is neither.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]